Your Questions About Green Living

When are we going to do something about over population ?

Why is over population rarely mentioned as an environmental issue ?
When it is clearly the worst threat , everything is amplified by over population.

Over population deniers have nothing to back up their claims. , who can someone not understand something so simple.
Of course there is so much space on Earth you can have a couple more billions people but …the quality of life for all living beings reduce as we multiply , we are destroying everything……

The effects of human overpopulation are multiple and ominous. As birth rates climb, natural resources get used up faster than they can be replaced, creating enormous economic pressures at home while the standard of living plummets throughout the rest of the world.

As the result of having so many people who do not understand our reality and its behavioral demands, we have created an interrelated web of global environmental problems.

We are depleting our natural resources: our forests, fisheries, range lands, croplands, and plant and animal species. We are destroying the biological diversity on which evolution thrives (this is being called the sixth great wave of extinction in the history of life on earth, different from the others in that it is caused not by external events, but by us).

With powerful new electrical and diesel pumping techniques, we are draining our aquifers and lowering our water tables. We are systemically polluting our air, water, and soil, and consequently our food chain. We are depleting the stratospheric ozone that shields us from harmful ultraviolet radiation. And, we are experiencing symptoms of global warming: heat waves, devastating droughts, dying forests, accelerated species extinction, dying coral reefs, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, more frequent and intense storms, and a more rapid spread of diseases.

How can it be so hard to understand ??? what are we waiting for…..
Tasha : Ok, now that it’s addressed, what do you have in mind to do about it?

Reply : Reduce human reprodution rate drastically , if people do not want to cooperate willingly then we must enforce special laws , 1-2 child policy. Over population is very serious it is much more serious then murderers which we have laws for ( For a good reason , same should apply with over population )

What are the social implications of a genetic basis for the differences in IQ between whites and blacks?

I’m not suggesting anything so don’t accuse me of racism. I’m just presenting a what if scenario. If it could be proved beyond doubt that the differences in IQ between whites and blacks is a result of genetic differences and has very little to do with the environment, what would be the social implications of this.

I would say ending affirmative action is one thing that could and would be done, because affirmative action assumes that blacks and whites have the same intellectual potential, and that blacks are only at a disadvantage because of the environment that they grow up in. Affirmative action assumes that IQ differences and SAT score differences between whites and blacks is largely environmental. If it could be proved that the IQ difference between whites and blacks is largely genetic, then affirmative action is a waste of time and achieves nothing and should be brought to an end.

What other social implications can you think of?

Another question – Why are we so determined to censor this debate on race and IQ. The truth may be harsh, but surely it is better to know the truth than hide from it. Any scientist that speaks on issue of race and IQ is attacked by everyone and censored in the media. This is not healthy because it prevents us knowing the whole truth on the issue. Atleast let them investigate it properly and let them share their findings with the world instead of attacking and being frightened of what they have to say.

What are the social implications of a genetic basis for the differences in IQ between whites and blacks?

I’m not suggesting anything so don’t accuse me of racism. I’m just presenting a what if scenario. If it could be proved beyond doubt that the differences in IQ between whites and blacks is a result of genetic differences and has very little to do with the environment, what would be the social implications of this.

I would say ending affirmative action is one thing that could and would be done, because affirmative action assumes that blacks and whites have the same intellectual potential, and that blacks are only at a disadvantage because of the environment that they grow up in. Affirmative action assumes that IQ differences and SAT score differences between whites and blacks is largely environmental. If it could be proved that the IQ difference between whites and blacks is largely genetic, then affirmative action is a waste of time and achieves nothing and should be brought to an end.

What other social implications can you think of?

Another question – Why are we so determined to censor this debate on race and IQ. The truth may be harsh, but surely it is better to know the truth than hide from it. Any scientist that speaks on issue of race and IQ is attacked by everyone and censored in the media. This is not healthy because it prevents us knowing the whole truth on the issue. Atleast let them investigate it properly and let them share their findings with the world instead of attacking and being frightened of what they have to say.

Libs how about some real answers to real issues?

Proven you increase taxes on the wealthy for the benefit of the poor. This slows the economy and decreases available jobs creating an unemployment state. Why do you persist?

Proven you want to leave Iraq yet have no plan of departure that stabilizes the Middle East? What’s your plan?

Proven you want us to “do something in Darfur” just like Amnesty International wanted us to “Do something” in Iraq in 2002 yet you turned rabid when everything became a challenge? What’s your plan for recovery of Darfur?

You want zero environmental industrial base. Yet you want bio based products and all natural products whenever you turn around? How can you accomplish this?

These are just a few but the trend becomes a Kid’s Christmas list and you are never satisified. You all want and demand more yet give and create the strategy less and less.

What is the appropriate place for the market?

This question is asked after reviewing Ron Paul’s position on free markets.

Markets can be a great way to reach optimal efficiency levels when talking of commodity exchanges and supply and demand. There are, however, some assumptions that economists often make when talking of markets (at least from a very general and basic level). They are:
1) Many buyers and sellers
2) Standardized mode of exchange (ie: currency) representing an exchange value (separate, often from use value of a commodity).
3) Buyers and sellers have the same information.

Under the above assumptions, there’s no question that free markets are meant to reach optimal efficiency and productivity levels. However, let us review something such as an environmental issue. In this case (the one I’m most familiar with), it will be water management.

The natural place for the market is to fully satisfy demand with an available supply. If everything is left to the market, this would inevitably mean that water would be transferred from lower valued users to higher valued users (which, in most cases, means more specialty crop production and water being transferred from irrigation to municipal or industrial uses). Environmentally, however, this could mean more mono-culture agriculture, dimishing genetic variation amongst crops, and the marginalization of lower valued water users (which can lead to more farm consolidation and the decline of many rural communities). Socially and enviornmentally, we can see examples where the “optimal” outcome can leave many people unemployed and the enviornment degraded.

So, I ask… what do you think is the appropriate place for the market regarding:
1) Social outcomes
2) Economic outcomes
3) Environmental outcomes

And, finally, what do you think the government’s role should be regarding markets?
@ Arpotter. I will give you an example. Let’s say you have an area like Northern Montana or Southern Alberta with irrigated pasture land and sileage production (which accounts for most irrigation in those regions), cereal grain production, and other specialty crop production. On the pasture land you have a huge variation of native and introduced species of plants and animals. Medium sized farms producing other crops can grow Marquis wheat, Durum wheat, and other types… and maybe peas and corn for feed.

When water moves away from pasture and sileage production, it `USUALLY` goes towards higher valued crops like corn, potatoes and sugar beets (in those regions mentioned). Furthermore, it expedites farm consolidation by driving out less efficiet users. The result is usually fewer crops grown (less variety), albeit higher valued ones. Over the last 20 years this trend has led to less variability amongst crops (since only the toughest and best strains are chosen or production)
@ james

I’m using the example of prior appropriation, or use based, water laws that are very typical in the Western states, Australia and parts of Western Canada. Many of these regions have adopted water markets to varying success. Riparian water laws are typically characteristic of the eastern part of North America where there usually are not any water markets.
@ james

I’m using the example of prior appropriation, or use based, water laws that are very typical in the Western states, Australia and parts of Western Canada. Many of these regions have adopted water markets to varying success. Riparian water laws are typically characteristic of the eastern part of North America where there usually are not any water markets.